CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>You're using logic to force me to a conclusion that I don't agree with,
>and I give you a series of propositions in lieu of that.  I don't demand
>that you agree with those propositions.  The propositions are assertions
>within a religious domain/context/tradition.  It is not unprofessional to
>assert them, nor unethical, nor uncommonsensical given their long
>religious tradition.  

     The long religious tradition that you are refering to that arises
from "God is Good, Man is Bad" is the tradition of religious insanity
that has almost destroyed this planet from day one.

     Maybe *YOU* should spend some time trying to grasp my linguistic
intent behind "God is fully responsible for the acts of his
creations", rather than just blindly denying it on its literal
interpretation, eh?
     You are not the only one with religious tradition behind you.

     It is quite unprofessional to assert propositions that do not
mean exactly what they say without proper disclaimers attached to them
to that effect, and it is quite unprofessional to assert propositions
that pretend to mean what they say and yet do not maintain logical
consistency between them.

     You can not have the credence of logic behind your propositions
unless you maintain the consistency of logic amongst your
propositions.  If you do not wish the credence of logic to your
propositions, then say so up front.

>- CBW

Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com